Prabhakara Adiga vs.

Gowri and others

Date of Judgment: 20.02.2017

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 47 and 50 read with Order 21 Rules 16 and 32 – Execution of decree –
Section 50 is not confined to a particular kind of decree – Decree for permanent injunction can be executed
against judgment debtor or his legal representatives – It would be open to decree holder to execute decree
against successor of interest of judgment debtor also – Death of person liable to render account for property
received by him does not affect liability of his estate – Right which had been adjudicated in suit in present matter
and findings which have been recorded as basis for grant of injunction as to disputed property which is heritable
and partible would enure not only to benefit of legal heir of decree-holders but also would bind legal
representatives of judgment-debtor.
(B) Maxim – actio personalis moritur cum persona (action dies with the person) – Execution of decree – Maxim is
limited to certain class of cases – When right litigated upon is heritable, decree would not normally abate and
can be enforced by LRs. of decree-holder and against judgment-debtor or his legal representatives – It would
be against public policy to ask decree-holder to litigate once over again against legal representatives of
judgment-debtor when cause and injunction survives.

(V Important)

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others

Date of Judgment: 02.02.2017

A two Judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that Magistrate cannot order further investigation
after the cognizance has been taken, process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in
response thereto. The Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy held that though the
investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably
after informing the Court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval, no such
power is available therefore to the Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report,
process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto.

“At that stage, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant direct
further investigation. Such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating agency and that too,
in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair
investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand”, the Bench said.

The Bench said that the investigating agency/officer alone has been authorized to conduct further investigation
without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto.

The bench has also distinguished the power of Magistrate to order investigation under S.202(1) of Cr.PC.

“The direction for investigation by the Magistrate under Section 202, while dealing with a
complaint, though is at a post-cognizance stage, it is in the nature of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as
to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not”, the Bench said.

(Not Important) V. Rajendran vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) thr. L.Rs. Karthyayani Natchiar

Date of Judgment: 24.01.2017

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 23, Rule 1(3) – Withdrawal of Suit – Abandonment of part of claim –
“Formal Defect” – “Sufficient Grounds” – Distinction – Essential requirements to seek withdrawal of Suit – Defect in
Survey Number of Suit property – Application for withdrawal of Suit filed at stage of trial – Trial Court granted permission
for withdrawal – High Court held that defect in Survey Number of Suit property cannot be treated as “Formal defect” –
Power to allow withdrawal of Suit is discretionary in nature – Principle founded on policy to prevent institution of Suit
again and again on same cause of action – “Formal defect” must be given liberal meaning which connotes various kinds of
defects not affecting merits of plea raised by either of parties – Defect in Survey Number of Suit property goes to root of
subject matter of Suit – Entire proceedings would be fruitless if Decree holder is not able to get Decree successfully –
Order of Trial Court allowing Application for withdrawal of Suit allowed with Costs.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 23, rule 1(3)(b) – Withdrawal of Suit – Essential conditions – Exercise of
discretion – “Sufficient grounds” – Duty of Court – Court must be satisfied about “Formal Defect” or “Sufficient Grounds”
– Facets of Formal Defect: (i) Want of Notice 3 under Section 80, C.P.C (ii) Improper valuation of Suit (iii) Insufficient
Court-fee (iv) Confusion regarding identification of Suit property (v) Mis-joinder of parties (vi) Failure to disclose cause
of action, etc. – Liberty to withdraw Suit at any time after institution of Suit cannot be considered as absolute right to
permit or encourage abuse of process of Court – No license to Plaintiff to claim or to do so detriment of legitimate right of
Defendant.

Madhuri Ghosh and another vs. Debobroto Dutta and another

Date of Judgment: 09.11.2016

Family and Personal Laws – Family Property, Succession and Inheritance – Will – Nature of Bequest/Disposition:
Vested/Contingent/Conditional/Absolute/Restricted/Limited – Absolute bequest in earlier part of will to prevail over any
subsequent bequest - Where an absolute bequest has been made in respect of certain property to certain persons, then a
subsequent bequest made qua the same property later in the same will to other persons will be of no effect – Earlier
clause of will granting absolute right to house property jointly to testator’s widow and elder daughter but later clause
directing that after death of widow and daughter other lineal descendants would become owners of specified parts of
same property – Held, absolute bequest in CI.2 would prevail over subsequent bequest in CI.4 – Succession Act, 1925, Ss.
138, 139, 95 and 88.

(V Important)

State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar & Others

The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar & Others has held that, recalling of witnesses
as envisaged under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that accused persons are in
custody, the prosecution was allowed to recall some of its witnesses earlier, the counsel was ill and
magnanimity commands fairness should be shown, is not acceptable. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices
Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit set aside a Judgment of High Court which had allowed the accused to recall the
witnesses on the aforementioned grounds.

‘ACCUSED PERSONS ARE IN CUSTODY’ NOT A GROUND TO JUSTIFY RECALL

An application for recall of some prosecution witness for cross

examination on the ground that the counsel engaged earlier by defence
had not put certain questions and had not given certain suggestion -
High Court allowed the application on principle of magnanimity should
apply and fair trial - Order of High Court set aside and application for
recalling dismissed - Held :-

1. The accused persons had engaged counsel of their choice - In such a

situation recalling of witnesses indubitably cannot form the foundation.

2. Concept of magnanimous approach explained.

1. The Court should be magnanimous, did not mean to convey

individual generosity or magnanimity which is founded on any kind of
fanciful notion - It has to be applied on the basis of judicially
established and accepted principles.
E. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 311 Recalling of witnesses
for cross examination - Mere change of the counsel could not be
considered as a ground to allow the application fro recalling the
witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination.
The Bench observed: “The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in
the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the
principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the
accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective.
‘DOCTRINE OF BALANCE’ The Court further observed: “The cry of the collective may not be uttered in
decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent
cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already
explained the use of the words “magnanimous approach” and how it should be understood. Regard being had
to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced
opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If
we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders
like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of
balance.”

‘RECALL BY PROSECUTION IS NO GROUND TO ALLOW RECALL BY DEFENCE’

The Bench further observed: “Recall of some witnesses by the prosecution at one point of time, can
never be ground to entertain a petition by the defence though no acceptable ground is made out. It is not an
arithmetical distribution. This kind of reasoning can be dangerous. In the case at hand, the prosecution had
examined all the witnesses. The statements of all the accused persons, that is 148 in number, had been
recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The defence had examined 15 witnesses. The foundation for recall, as is
evincible from the applications filed, does not even remotely make out a case that such recalling is necessary
for just decision of the case or to arrive at the truth. The singular ground which prominently comes to surface is
that the earlier counsel who was engaged by the defence had not put some questions and failed to put some
questions and give certain suggestions. It has come on record that number of lawyers were engaged by the
defence. The accused persons had engaged counsel of their choice. In such a situation recalling of witnesses
indubitably cannot form the foundation. If it is accepted as a ground, there would be possibility of a retrial. There
may be an occasion when such a ground may weigh with the court, but definitely the instant case does not
arouse the judicial conscience within the established norms of Section 311 CrPC for exercise of such
jurisdiction.”

‘MAGNANIMITY NOT TO BE FOUNDED ON ANY KIND OF FANCIFUL NOTION’

The Court said: “The decisions which have used the words that the court should be magnanimous,
needless to give special emphasis, did not mean to convey individual generosity or magnanimity which is
founded on any kind of fanciful notion. It has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted
principles. The approach may be liberal but that does not necessarily mean “the liberal approach” shall be the
rule and all other parameters shall become exceptions.”

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma

Date of Judgment : 23.09.2016

The Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma, has held that
amount received or receivable by dependants of the deceased (who died in a motor accident) from the
employer by way of ex gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds can be deducted from the
quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the head “pay and
other allowances”.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C Pant and Justice AM
Khanwilkar partly allowed an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that held that
the amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate
Assistance to dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, cannot be deducted
from the quantum of compensation fixed by the MACT.

However the Bench clarified that claims towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if
the deceased government employee had survived the accident and other benefits extended to the
dependants of the deceased government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5,
including family pension, life insurance, provident fund etc, must remain unaffected and cannot be
allowed to be deducted.

The Tribunal Award

The MACT had held that since the Haryana Government had framed a policy, which was made
applicable to the deceased employee, to benefit the family of the deceased employees for loss of salary
for the remaining number of years of service, there was no monetary loss and awarded a compensation
only for loss of consortium to the wife and for transportation and funeral expenses in addition to the
interim compensation.

The High Court’s Modification of the Award

On appeal by claimants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court referring to a judgment in Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Purnima by a division bench of the high court held that the benefit of last
wages to dependants cannot be a subject of deduction in the manner of determination of compensation
arising out of a motor accident.

Supreme Court Partly Allows Appeal

Referring to the 2006 Rules, the apex court observed that Rule 5 broadly deals with two aspects of
compensation to the dependants of deceased government employee.

One is compensation by granting ex gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds for the loss of
pay and other allowances for a specified period and the other is compensation by way of allowances and
concessions — of retaining occupation of the government residence on specified terms, of family
pension and other allowances.

With regard to the first aspect, the court observed: “If the dependants of the deceased employee,
however, were to be compensated by the employer in that behalf, as is predicated by the Rules of 2006
– to grant compassionate assistance by way of ex gratia financial assistance on compassionate
grounds to the dependants of the deceased government employee, who dies in harness, it is
unfathomable that the dependants can still be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or
likely loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for compensation under the Act of
1988.” As regards the second part, the court held that since it deals with income from other source,
which any way is receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee, it cannot be
deducted from the claims amount, for determination of a just compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
 Prof. N.K.Ganguly vs. CBI, New Delhi

Date of Judgment : 19.11.2015

Criminal Complaint – Quashing of – Sanction to Prosecute – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Code 1973), Section 197 – Indian Penal Code 1860 (Code 1860), Section 120B – Appellants were alleged
to have committed economic offences in official capacity – Respondent filed complaint – On basis of
complaint, Court issued summons to appellants – Appellants filed application for quashing of
proceedings in absence of sanction from Central Government – Whether offence under Section 120B
Code 1860 is made out against appellants, and whether previous sanction of Central Government is
required to prosecute them – Whether order passed by Special Judge taking cognizance of offence
against appellants is legal and valid – Held, it becomes clear that for purpose of obtaining previous
sanction from appropriate government under Section 197 of Code 1973, it is imperative that alleged
offence is committed in discharge of official duty by accused – It is also important for Court to examine
allegations contained in final report against Appellants, to decide whether previous sanction is required
to be obtained by respondent from appropriate government before taking cognizance of alleged offence
– In instant case, allegations made against Appellants in final report filed by respondent that alleged
offences were committed by them in discharge of their official duty – Therefore, it was essential for
Special Judge to correctly decide as to viii SUPREME COURT CITATIONS CRIMINAL CASES whether
previous sanction from Central Government under Section 197 of Code 1973 was required to be taken
by respondent, before taking cognizance and passing order issuing summons to appellants for their
presence – In absence of previous sanction obtained from Central Government to prosecute appellants
as required under Section 197 of Code 1973, proceedings quashed – Appeals allowed.

Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others

Date of Judgment : 16.12.2015

Hindu law/widow, mother, whether can act as karta Held: a hindu widow is not a coparcener in
HUF of her husband, cannot act as Karta of HUF after death of her husband – where sole male
coparcener is a minor, mother can act as legal guardian of minor and also look after his role as Karta in
her capacity as his (minor’s) legal guardian – A Hindu widow as manager of HUF in her capacity as
guardian of sole surviving minor male coparcener, to be distinguished from a Karta Natural mother, step
mother, role of, what is, scope of.

Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another

Date of Judgment : 28.01.2016

Narcotics – Narcotics seizure – Guidelines for disposal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act 1985, Sections 52, 52A, 52A(ii) and 53 – In proceedings before Court following three
issues rise for consideration; Seizure and sampling of Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances, their
storage and destruction – After considering reports submitted from State authorities no uniformity or
standard procedure found – Following directions issued to ensure uniformity or standard procedure –
No sooner seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and conveyances is
effected, same to be forwarded to officer in-charge of nearest police station or to officer empowered
under Section 53 of Act 1985 – Officer concerned to approach Magistrate with application under Section
52A(ii) of Act 1985, which shall be allowed by Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section
3 of Section 52A – Sampling to be done under supervision of Magistrate – Central Government and
agencies and State Governments to take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for exclusive
storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances –
Storage facilities to be equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or
replacement of seized drugs – Central and State Governments to designate officer each for their
respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order to
ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of seized drugs – Central and State
Governments free to set up storage facility for each district in States and depending upon extent 7 of
seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts – Disposal of seized drugs
currently lying in police maalkhans and other places used for storage shall be carried out by concerned
in terms of directions issued – Chief Justices of High Courts concerned to appoint Committee of Judges
on administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by respective States in regard to
compliance with directions – Wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions for speedy action on
administrative and judicial side in public interest.

Vijay Prakash Jarath vs. Tej Prakash Jarath

Date of Judgment : 01.03.2016

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 8, Rule 6-A – Counter-claim filed after framing of issues
– Whether acceptable – Counter-claim filed by Defendant after framing of issues accepted by Trial Court
– High Court holding that said Counter-claim was not acceptable by relying upon decision in Rohit
Singh’s case, 2006 (12) SCC 734 – Held, decision in Rohit Singh’s case distinguishable from instant case –
Evidence and arguments from both sides were completed and case was reserved for Judgment on one
occasion in Right Singh’s case, whereas, in instant case, Plaintiff’s evidence had only commenced and
was not concluded and Defendant’s evidence was yet to commence – Cause of action for filing of
Counter-claim arose much before filing of Written Statement by Defendant as contemplated in Rule 6-
A(1) of Order 8 – Held, no serious prejudice or irreparable loss to be caused by Plaintiff by adjudication
of Counter-claim – Consequently, Order of Trial Court restored and Order of High Court, set aside –
Appeal allowed.

Don Ayengia vs. State of Assam

Date of Judgment : 28.01.2016

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque – Discharge of Liability – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section
138 – Complaint under Section 138 of Act 1881 was filed by Appellant against both debtor and
Respondent – Since debtor had passed away, proceedings against him abated but trial court found
Respondent guilty and accordingly convicted him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act 1881 –
Aggrieved by judgment and order passed by trial court, Respondent preferred Criminal Appeal before
Sessions Judge who while upholding conviction of Respondent modified sentence awarded to him to
payment of fine – Sentence of imprisonment was, in that view, set aside by appellate court – Criminal
Revision challenged conviction of Respondent by trial court and affirmed by Appellate Court for offence
under Section 138 of Act – High Court set aside conviction of Respondent and allowed Criminal Revision
– Appeals – Whether cheques issued by Respondent were meant to discharge, in whole or part, “any
debt or other liability” within meaning of Section 138 of Act 1881 – Held, existence of debt/liability was
never in dispute – It was acknowledged and promise was made to liquidate same within one month –
Failure on part of debtor to do so could lead to only one result, viz. presentation of cheques for payment
and in event of dishonor, launch of prosecution – Argument that Respondent had no liability to liquidate
debt owed by debtor, has not impressed Court – Besides fact that there is presumption that negotiable
instrument is supported by consideration there was no dispute that such consideration existed in as
much as cheques were issued in connection with discharge of outstanding liability against debtor – At
any rate endorsement made by Respondent on promissory note that cheques can be presented for
encashment clearly shows that cheques issued by him were not ornamental but were meant to be
presented if amount in question was not paid within extended period – High Court fell in error in
upsetting conviction recorded by Courts below who had correctly analysed factual situation and applied
law applicable to same – Appeals allowed.

Amal Kumar Jha vs. State of Chhatisgarh

Date of Judgment : 26.04.2016
Sanction – Sanction to Prosecute – Official Duty – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Code 1973), Section
197 – Indian Penal Code 1860 (Code 1860), Section 304-A – Police filed charge sheet under section 304-
A Code 1860 against Appellant and another – Both of them filed application for discharge under section
197 Code 1973 on ground that sanction to prosecute was required – Application filed by Appellant was
rejected on ground of negligence in not providing vehicle for shifting patient to hospital – Revision was
preferred against rejection and petition filed under section 482 Code 1973 before High Court – Same
having been dismissed, Appellant is before Court in appeal – Whether rejection of application by Lower
courts filed by Appellant for discharge on ground of requirement of sanction to prosecute under Section
197 of Code 1973 justified – Held, allegation 6 against Appellant is of omission in discharge of official
duty – Accused/Appellant was acting in discharge of his official duty when he refused to provide official
vehicle – Refusal is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty, thus sanction is required for
prosecution as provided under section 197(1) Code 1973 – Question arises a as to whether omission to
provide official jeep which was not meant for patients, would constitute omission in discharge of his
duty – Though public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities in course of his duty but act
in question had relation to discharge of official duty of accused – It was clearly connected to
performance of his official duty – Clear that omission complained of due to which offence is stated to
have been committed, was intrinsically connected with discharge of official duty of Appellant – As such
protection under section 197 Code 1973 from prosecution without sanction of competent authority is
available to App – In case sanction is granted only then Appellant can be prosecuted and not otherwise –
Appeal allowed.

Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India

Date of Judgment : 13.05.2016

Constitution – Constitutional Validity of Provision – Defamation proceeding – Constitution of India,

1950, Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 226 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code 1973), Sections
156(3), 199(1) to 199(6), 202 and 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Code 1860), Sections 499 and 500 –
Challenging constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of Code 1860 and Section 199 of Code 1973
upheld and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of Code 1973, Petitioners contend that rather than protecting
individual reputation, these sections have a chilling effect on free speech and cause discomfort to
Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of Constitution – Petitioners allege that differential treatment to civil servants is
discrimination and for said reason, provisions of Sections 199(2) to (4) of Code 1973 liable to be struck
down – Whether provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of Code 1860 and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of Code
1973 are constitutionally valid – Held, right to freedom of speech and expression valued, but
Constitution conceives of reasonable restriction – Criminal defamation as contemplated in Sections 499
and 500 of Code 1860 is not restriction on free speech that can be characterized as disproportionate –
Free speech cannot mean that citizen can defame other – Protection of reputation is fundamental right
and human right – Plea that provisions as to criminal defamation not saved by doctrine of
proportionality as it determines limit that is not impermissible within criterion of reasonable restriction,
cannot be accepted – Section 199(6) of Code 1973 gives to a public servant what every citizen has, as he
cannot be deprived of a right of a citi – If sanction not given by State to public servant to protect his
right, he can file case before Magistrate – Once held that public servants constitute different class in
respect of conduct pertaining to their discharge of duties and functions, engagement of Public
Prosecutor cannot be found fault with – Code 1973 governs territorial jurisdiction and if there is abuse
of such jurisdiction, person grieved by issue of summons can take appropriate steps as per law, but it
cannot be reason for declaring provision unconstitutional – Section 199 of Code 1973 envisages filing of
complaint in Court – In case of criminal defamation, neither FIR can be filed nor direction be issued
under Section 156(3) of Code 1973 – In case of criminal defamation, burden is on Magistracy to
scrutinize complaint – Magistrate has to keep in view language in Section 202 of Code 1973 and must be
satisfied that ingredients of Section 499 of Code 1860 satisfied – Plea that if Exception to Section 499 of
Code 1860 should be taken into consideration at time of issuing summons, would be contrary to
established criminal jurisprudence and stand that it cannot be taken into consideration makes provision
unreasonable is unsustainable, same repelled – Constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of Code
1860 and Section 199 of Code 1973 upheld – Writ petitions disposed of – Transfer petitions disposed of.
 Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab through CBI
Date of Judgment : 25.04.2016

Criminal Proceedings – Proceedings Against Police Officers – Sanction of Central Government – Punjab
disturbed Areas Act, 1983 (Act 1983), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code 1973), Section
197 – Allegation against Police Officers for killing deceased in fake encounter – Based on complaint
lodged by father of one of the deceased, CBI obtained sanction from State to prosecute
Appellants/accused and on basis of same, filed charge sheet against them – Appellants’ application for
discharge on ground that they acted in course of their duty and sanction granted by State was without
jurisdiction, illegal and void was dismissed – Revision filed by accused also dismissed – Appeals by
accused with allegation that prosecution could not have been launched without obtaining sanction of
Central Government in view of provisions contained in Section 6 of Act 1983 as amended – Writ petition
also filed by father of one of the deceased – Whether in view of provisions contained in Section 6 of Act
1983 as amended, prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to Police Officers can be instituted
without prior sanction of Central Government – Held, protection of sanction is assurance to honest and
sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to best of his ability to further public duty, but Authority
cannot be camouflaged to commit crime – Once act or omission found to be committed by public
servant in discharging his duty even exceeding his duty, if there is reasonable 6 connection, it will not
deprive him of protection under Section 197 of Code 1973 – Question of sanction can be raised at time
of framing of charge and it can be decided on basis of accusation and open to decide it afresh in light of
evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage – In present case, if version of
prosecution found to be correct, no requirement of sanction – Open to accused to adduce evidence and
to submit such materials indicating that incident took place in discharge of their duties – Orders passed
earlier would not come in way of Trial Court to decide question afresh in light of principles stated from
stage to stage or even at time of conclusion of trial – At present stage, it cannot be said which version is
correct – Trial Court has prima facie to proceed on basis of prosecution version and can re-decide
question afresh from evidence adduced by prosecution or by accused or in any other manner – Trial
Court shall re-examine question of sanction and take decision in accordance with law – Appeals
disposed of – Writ petition disposed of.

Balveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

Date of Judgment : 10.05.2016
Cognizance – Cognizance of Offence – Suicide – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Code 1973), Sections
173(8) and 190 – Indian Penal Code 1860 (Code 1860), Sections 304-B, 306 and 498- A – Appellants are
parents of son who was married to deceased – Respondent no.2/Complainant/father of deceased filed
complaint – Matter was investigated which resulted into filing of charge sheet against son of Appellants
only for abetting suicide committed by deceased – Respondent No.2 filed application before Magistrate
First Class (JMFC) for taking cognizance against Appellants and son under Sections 304-B and 498-A of
Code 1860 – Application was dismissed by Magistrate – Magistrate committed case before Sessions
Court as offence under Section 306 of Code 1860 is triable by Sessions Court – Before Sessions Court,
Respondent No.2 preferred similar application once again – Session Courts accepted application and
issued warrants – Appellants challenged order by filing revision petition before High Court which has
been dismissed – Order is impugned in present proceedings – Whether Court of Sessions was
empowered to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Code 1860 when similar
application was rejected by JMFC while committing case to Sessions Court, taking cognizance of offence
only under Section 306 IPC and specifically refusing to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B
and 498-A Code 1860 – Held, it cannot be said that Magistrate had played ‘passive role’ role while
committing case to Court of Sessions – Magistrate had taken cognizance after due application of mind
and playing “active role” in process – Position would have been different if Magistrate had simply
forwarded application of complainant to Court of Sessions while committing case – Court is of opinion
that it would be case where Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence – Sessions Court on similar
application made by 7 complainant before it, took cognizance thereupon – Notwithstanding the same,
the Sessions Court on similar application made by complainant before it, took cognizance thereupon –
Order of Magistrate refusing to take cognizance against Appellants is revisable – Power of revision can
be exercised by superior Court – In present case it will be Court of Sessions itself, either on revision
petition that can be filed by aggrieved party or even suo moto by revisional Court itself – Court of
Sessions was not powerless to pass order in his revisionary jurisdiction – Things would have been
different had Court of Sessions passed impugned order taking cognizance of offence against Appellants
without affording any opportunity to them – With order that was passed by Magistrate valuable right
had accrued in favour of Appellants – Court finds that proper opportunity was given to Appellants herein
who had filed reply to application of complainant and Sessions Court had also heard their arguments –
Court not inclined to interfere with impugned order – Appeal dismissed.

Very Important
Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Devpt. Agency Ltd.
Date of Judgment : 19.09.2016
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Postdated Cheque
– Legally enforceable Debt – Dishonour of Post-dated Cheque given for repayment of Loan instalment –
Whether dishonour of Post-dated Cheques given by way of Security would attract offences under
Section 138 of Act – Accused entered into Development Agreement with Complainant to advance Loan
for project – Agreement recorded that Post-dated Cheques were issued as Security towards repayment
of instalments of Loan – Contention of Accused that Cheques were not issued towards discharge of debt
or liability in praesenti but for Amount payable in future – Legal issue as to whether Post-dated Cheque
is for discharge of debt or liability, depends on nature of transaction – Loan was disbursed prior to date
of issuance of Post-dated Cheques – Accused incurred liability on date of Cheque in terms of Loan
Agreement – Cheque issued by Accused represents discharge of existing enforceable debt and liability –
Complaint is maintainable. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheques issued
as Security – “Security” – Meaning of – Whether Cheque issued as Security, is question of fact – Test is
whether Cheque is issued in discharge of existing enforceable debt or advance payment with subsisting
debt or liability. *

Surinderjit Singh Mand vs. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment : 05.07.2016
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.197 – Sanction for prosecution – Alleged offence, attributed to the
accused, if had been committed by the accused “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty” – Determination of – Alleged illegal detention of accused N, before his formal arrest, by
appellant accused police officers – Sanction if required for prosecution of appellants
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss.197 and 319 – Sanction for prosecution – Requirement of, before
taking cognizance under S.319 CrPC

Muthuramalingam vs. State

Date of Judgment : 19.07.2016

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.31(1) and Ss.432 to 433-A – Person convicted of several offences
at one trial - I. Sentences that may be awarded; 7 II. Whether they are to run consecutively or
concurrently when – Case 1: Multiple sentences awarded, none of them being life imprisonment; Case
2: Multiple sentences awarded, some being term sentences and one sentence of life imprisonment;
Case 3: Multiple sentences of life imprisonment only; Case 4: Multiple sentences awarded some being
term sentences and multiple sentences of life imprisonment; III. Effect of remission/commutation of one
sentence of life imprisonment when multiple sentences of life imprisonment are imposed B. Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 – S.31(1) – Person convicted of several offences at one trial and sentenced to
multiple sentences of life imprisonment – Held, the same cannot be directed to run consecutively – They
can only run concurrently – In law they stand superimposed on each other C. Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 – Ss.432 to 433-A and S.31(1) – Person convicted of several offences at one trial and sentenced to
multiple sentences of life imprisonment – Effect of remission/commutation of one sentence of life
imprisonment – Held, in such a case multiple sentences of life imprisonment stand superimposed on
each other to run concurrently – Thus, in case prisoner is granted benefit of remission or commutation
qua one such sentence, the benefit of such remission would not ipso facto extend to the other D.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss.31(1) and (2) – Distinctive applicability and scope of sub-sections (1)
and (2), explained